The Mineta Speech, Pt.2

This is the second installment of a speech by former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, who pointed to some ways that U.S. maritime policy was lacking. While by no means a comprehensive critique of a policy and sector in need, his remarks were a high altitude flare signaling something needs attention. The first of three installments are here. The speech didn’t garner much attention at the time. It is worth going back to take a look.

During Mineta’s tenure and that of his successor, Mary Peters, the DOT Secretary’s Office evidenced more interest in a functioning, productive Committee on the Marine Transportation System than did the department’s own marine transportation agency. To a certain extent it was understandable. MARAD generally played second maritime fiddle to the Coast Guard when that uniformed service was under USDOT. Now, with the Coasties out of USDOT and under the newly created Department of Homeland Security, MARAD leadership had little interest in sharing a coordinating role with other agencies since MARAD considered itself the U.S. maritime agency.

One even heard that Secretary Mineta made an attempt to gain program control over the construction and maintenance of navigation channel infrastructure, long the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers. After all, the Department of Transportation had jurisdiction over other modal infrastructure and USACE had its share of critics. I don’t know if any serious attempt was made then but, obviously, nothing ever came of it. Not surprising. Washington turf comes in an especially change-resistant variety. Nevertheless it remained a policy objective, as you will see.

The dispersal of marine transportation related matters among a dozen-and-a-half government agencies was just one of the conditions the former secretary pointed to 2007. The Mineta Speech continues…

“Now, what about our national maritime policy? Frankly, it is comparatively meager and unfocused. Jurisdictions are scattered throughout the government. One agency advocates for maritime trade, another oversees aids to navigation. Another helps build and maintain ports and waterways, another regulates shipping, and another oversees security.

“With respect to congressional funding, surface transportation and aviation each have major reauthorization bills with billions of dollars budgeted for projects, while maritime funding is scattered, uncoordinated, and subject to diversions for other purposes.

“Some of this is a result of history. Our aviation system was essentially created by the federal government at the birth of commercial aviation prior to World War II. And the federal government’s role in our national road system was guaranteed by the postwar vision of President Eisenhower who had witnessed the benefits of the German autobahn.

“But America was a collection of ports before it ever was a nation. Most Americans became Americans by transiting on ships. And the long history from colonies, territories and states with their own ports has created a tangled network of jurisdictions and authorities.

“Let me quickly add that I am not advocating for a central maritime system. We only need to look at the knot of federal environmental laws and custom regulations to see how the federal government can inhibit the process with good intentions poorly implemented.

“However, in the increasing globalized economy; in a just-in-time-freight logistics system; in unprecedented energy challenges; and in ports that are at risk of becoming outdated; the Federal government must respond – and its response must be more than opening its checkbook. And the private industry must do more than look for low hanging investment fruit opportunities.